Arvind Kumar Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Arvind Kumar in proceedings under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the relevant provisions of the Punjab GST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act. The petitioner, proprietor of Bhumi Steel Traders, was alleged to have availed fake input tax credit invoices through bogus firms allegedly created and operated by other persons, causing loss of ₹18.22 crore to the State Exchequer. The Court noted that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for two months and six days, the main accused had been granted bail, his antecedents were clean, nothing had been recovered from his premises, and investigation/interrogation concerning other persons was continuing.
Holding that indefinite detention would serve no purpose and referring to the presumption of innocence, the Court relied upon Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court reiterated that bail is the general rule and jail an exception. The High Court also referred to the Article 21 right to speedy trial and the Supreme Court ruling in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, while clarifying that the observations in the order would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.
Cases Discussed
- Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon. The Court relied on the principles of presumption of innocence and that grant of bail is the general rule while incarceration is an exception.
- Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon. Cited for the principle that the right to speedy trial forms part of the reasonable, fair and just procedure protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 (Supreme Court) — Discussed through Dataram. Referred to in the extracted portion of Dataram while explaining the historical background and liberal interpretation of bail provisions.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Supreme Court) — Discussed through Dataram.
- Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (Calcutta High Court) — Discussed through Dataram. Referred to for the proposition that bail is not to be withheld as punishment.
- Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 (Allahabad High Court) — Discussed through Dataram. Referred to for the proposition that grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception.
FULL TEXT OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ORDER
1. Prayer
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS of 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case endorsement No.DGGI/INT/MISC/53/2025-Gr-B-O/0 DD-DGGI-RU, Amritsar u/s 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017 read with relevant provisions of Punjab GST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of IGST Act, 2012 (Annexure P-1).
2. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner is proprietor of Bhumi Steel Traders having GSTIN 03APLPK2516FIZA situated at 370-A, Sector 20A, Harchand Mill Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib had availed fake input Tax Credit invoices on fake firms created and operated by Sh. Dipanshu Srivastav and Mohit Kumar and thus, committed the offences mentioned above. It is his contention that co-accused Deepanshu Srivastav was the key person involved in alleged fake/bogus invoices and thereby caused loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.18.22 crores who has been granted concession of bail by Luckhnow High Court vide order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-3). Hence, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
3. On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is involved in the act of availing and utilization of fraudulent Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs. 18.22 crores and the said allegations are serious in nature.
4. Analysis
From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 2 months and 6 days, main accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, added with the fact that nothing stands recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The details have been divulged by the counsel for the petitioner and also deposition has been made qua his role whereas certain other persons have been named by the petitioner who are being interrogated and on that account it would be unjust to deny the petitioner concession of regular bail who has suffered custody for more than 2 months whereas the interrogation qua other persons is underway, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.
It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-
“7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated:
“I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.”
5. Relief
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
